Organizational
Psychology
Editorial
Advancing theory in
organizational psychology
Daan van Knippenberg
Erasmus University Rotterdam
There is nothing so practical as a good theory.
Kurt Lewin
Organizational psychology is an applied
science. It is driven by a desire to address issues
that are important to people at work. Perhaps as
a consequence of this applied focus that
sometimes appears to prioritize data over
theory and applicability over fundamental
insight, the field of organizational psychology
seems undertheorized. Of course, good scien-
tific research in organizational psychology is
guided by well-developed conceptual analyses,
but by the realities of research in academia
these analyses are limited to what can actually
be tested in the particular study at hand. As a
result, there is much ‘‘micro-theory’’ limited
to the set of relationships that can be covered
empirically in one study, but far less conceptual
work that is integrative and overarching—work
that offers broader ranging theoretical perspec-
tives that speak more comprehensively to the
issues under consideration. Probably exacerbat-
ing this problem is that academic journals often
prioritize novelty in empirical contributions to
Corresponding author:
Daan van Knippenberg, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR
Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Email: dvanknippenberg@rsm.nl
Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on June 22, 2015
Review
Organizational Psychology Review
1(1) 3–8
ª 2011 SAGE Publications and the
European Association for Work and
Organizational Psychology
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2041386610386427
opr.sagepub.com
such an extent that programmatic development
of a theoretical analysis across studies increas-
ingly seems to be penalized by the observation
that the contribution is ‘‘too incremental’’ in
building on prior work to warrant publication
(belying the very fact that scientific progress
is largely incremental and providing an
incentive to downplay conceptual connections
with prior work). Yet, as Kurt Lewin, one of the
founders of organizational psychology as a
scientific discipline, famously noted, the practical
significance and value of good theory is enor-
mous. Theory explains and thus allows practice
to move beyond an ill-understood ‘‘bag of tricks’’
to better informed actions, and theory guides the
further development of knowledge to develop
more sophisticated practice.
Perhaps part of the problem here is that
many academic outlets in the field seem less
than welcoming to conceptual work. Despite
the substantive number of journals for empiri-
cal research, there is a striking lack of dedicated
outlets for conceptual work in organizational
psychology. While a number of empirical
journals in principle are open to conceptual
4 Organizational Psychology Review 1(1)
work, the emphasis of most of these, in practice,
lies heavily with empirical research and the few
outlets in management that are focused on
conceptual work cover only part of the field of
organizational psychology. In the absence of
journals dedicated to conceptual work in orga-
nizational psychology, the threshold to under-
taking a conceptual study is high. Indeed, one
root cause of the somewhat undertheorized sta-
tus of the field seems to be that many people shy
away from undertaking such analyses to begin
with, at least in part because of the low expec-
tations that one will be able to publish a con-
ceptual study.
In recognition of the great importance of
high-quality conceptual analyses to the further
development of organizational psychology
Organizational Psychology Review (OPR) was
conceived to be the first journal in organiza-
tional psychology dedicated to conceptual stud-
ies and meta-analyses. OPR’s aim is to advance
theory in organizational psychology by provid-
ing a global forum for theory development.
OPR broadly defines organizational psychol-
ogy to include applied psychology, industrial
psychology, occupational psychology, organi-
zational behavior, personnel psychology, and
work psychology.
Articles published in OPR should have the
potential to have a major impact on research and
practice in organizational psychology. They
should offer analyses worth citing, worth fol-
lowing up on in primary research, and worth
considering as a basis for applied managerial
practice. As such, these should be contributions
that move beyond straightforward reviews of the
existing literature by developing new theory and
insights. At the same time, however, they should
be well-grounded in the state of the science and
the empirical knowledge base, providing a good
mix of a firm empirical and theoretical basis and
exciting new ideas. Obviously, this brief
includes the publication of conceptual studies
that advance new theory in organizational psy-
chology, but it also includes state-of-the-science
reviews and quantitative integrations of the
Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on June 22, 2015
literature through meta-analytic techniques with
clear value-added conceptual contributions and
agenda-setting implications.
The question of what makes for a good
conceptual contribution—or for good theory—
in organizational psychology is not so easy to
answer, however, as this will for instance be
contingent on the specific issue under con-
siderations (e.g., the conceptual development of
the field is much more advanced in some areas
than in others, giving rise to different demands
to a conceptual contribution). Indeed, in their
seminal discussion of theory in organization
science Sutton and Staw (1995) recognized this
problem even to the extent that they framed
their analysis around the question of what the-
ory is not, on the explicit assumption that it is a
more realistic ambition to answer the latter
question than the question of what makes for
good theory. Likewise, I will not presume
that this editorial can come even close to an
elaborate and detailed answer to the question of
what good theory in organizational psychology
is, but advance the following even so.
Good theory in organizational psychology
captures the psychological and behavioral
processes through which phenomena relevant
to the behavior of people at work come about.
It does so in ways that clearly position its
conceptual analysis within the larger literature
addressing the psychological and behavioral
processes under consideration as well as related
processes and concepts (i.e., the larger nomo-
logical net). Good theory explains. It captures
causal relationships between concepts with a
sufficient level of specificity to provide an
explanation with enough detail to be insightful
and to offer fertile ground for further theory
development as well as practical application.
As a result, good theory is testable. It provides
clear and explicit statements about causal
relationships between variables that lend
themselves to empirical testing. Good theory
thus has clear and firm roots in the state of the
science, and clear and important implications
for the further development of the science.
van Knippenberg
In considering whether a contribution
qualifies for publication in OPR, however, the
issue is not only whether it is good theory—
a sine qua non—but also whether it makes
a conceptual contribution with sufficient value
added above and beyond what is out there
already—a second key criterion in publication
decisions. A study published in OPR will thus
also clearly identify its contribution to the
literature, both by positioning this contribution
within the larger literature and by presenting a
compelling case for the importance of this
contribution.
One consideration in respect to a study’s
value-added contribution—but clearly not the
only one—is the scope of the analysis. At first
blush, the following is perhaps the weirdest
thing to say for the editor of a conceptual
journal that does not publish primary research,
but the one great weakness of conceptual
studies is that they do not include empirical evi-
dence supporting their conceptual propositions
(after all, if these propositions were already
supported by empirical research, there would
be no value added in advancing them in a con-
ceptual contribution). To justify the publication
of a study with such a clear weakness, the study
should compensate in its scope, and cover more
ground than could reasonably be covered by a
small number of empirical studies. Put differ-
ently, if a conceptual analysis is concise enough
to put to an empirical test in one or two studies,
there would be more value added in pursuing
the empirical evidence for publication than in
publication of the conceptual analysis (one
simple test to determine whether a study is
suited for publication as a conceptual analysis
thus is to try to design a study that could test
it; if this study seems realistically feasible, the
conceptual analysis probably does not warrant
stand-alone publication). The ‘‘bigger picture’’
captured by a good conceptual analysis is an
important part of what justifies its publication.
Obviously, this should not be seen as an
invitation to just extend the list of propositions
advanced in an analysis. Coherence is a valued
Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on June 22, 2015
5
quality, and extension for the sake of extension
does not result in a stronger message. Indeed, the
scope and depth of an analysis are probably only
modestly related to the number of propositions
advanced or the number of variables included,
and the ‘‘bigger-picture’’ quality of a study could
be reflected in myriad ways. Rather, the issue is to
advance an analysis that would inspire multiple
studies—directly inspired by the study’s proposi-
tions as well as more distal ‘‘spin-offs.’’
On a different, but somewhat related note, in
clearly identifying the value-added contribution
of a study, it is good practice to include formal
proposition of the key relationships proposed in
the analysis. Formal propositions tend to draw
readers’ attention and tend to function as an
executive summary of the analysis. Formal pro-
position will be understood to capture the key
contributions of the analysis, and by thus
explicitly identifying these contributions they
become easier to judge and appreciate. Ulti-
mately, the formal propositions advanced in a
conceptual analysis are also likely to have the
greater impact on follow-up research targeted
at further conceptual development and empirical
tests. In addition or alternatively (OPR is not
dogmatic about this), authors may also find that
figures or tables summarizing their analysis can
take on this function of executive summary to
convey the core of their message.
It is tempting to try to draw a sharp distinction
between conceptual studies and reviews of the
literature, but the reality is that such a sharp
distinction does not exist. Any good conceptual
contribution will be grounded in a good review
of the literature, and any good review of the
literature will make a conceptual contribution
that moves it beyond a mere summary of what
is out there. The distinction between a good
conceptual study and a good review thus to a
considerable extent is more a matter of degree
than of a qualitative difference. Even so, it is
instructive to think of reviews as studies that
have as one of their primary aims to provide an
assessment of the state of the science, whereas
conceptual studies emphasize the development
6 Organizational Psychology Review 1(1)
of new theory over comprehensive coverage of a
field. Thought of in this way, the value-added
contribution to the literature of a conceptual
study should lie clearly and squarely with the
new theory it advances, whereas the value added
of a review should lie with the combination of
assessment of the state of the science and the
advancement of new insights. This also makes
it easy to see that for a review, the risk looms
larger that it does not transcend the status of a
summary of what is out there, and for reviews
in particular I note the following in terms of what
would render them suited for publication in OPR.
Reviews should present a clear case for why
it is useful to take stock of the state of the
science in the first place. If empirical studies in
an area all work from a consensually shared
understanding of the state of the field and the
review would not challenge this view, what is the
value added of the review? A first issue should be
that it is not clear what the state of the science is.
Following from this, a good review should not
merely observe the problem (e.g., disparate
findings), but offer a solution in terms of a con-
ceptual integration of the literature that can be
understood to make a value-added conceptual
contribution. Related to this, a good review will
typically identify a research agenda guided by
this conceptual integration. This research agenda
should move beyond the mere observation that
research is lacking in certain areas, but rather
present a strong conceptual argument of why the
pursuit of certain directions is important—which
conceptual contributions can be expected from
the pursuit of these directions?
That being said, at OPR we clearly recognize
that the threshold for undertaking a review as
compared with a conceptual analysis might be
higher, because the risk looms larger in people’s
minds that the conceptual contribution of their
review will be judged too modest to warrant
publication (if only because by its very nature
the study relies much more on work that is
published already). We therefore have launched
a Call for Review Proposals (see elsewhere in
this issue) to lower this threshold somewhat.
Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on June 22, 2015
This call makes it possible to limit the initial
investment to a detailed proposal of the intended
review on the basis of which the editorial team
will invite the most promising proposals to sub-
mit the proposed study (combined with feedback
on how to realize the potential of the review).
For a variety of reasons sophisticated and
mundane, OPR targets contributions to be no
longer than 10,000 words, all included. What
this means in practice is that to be able to
unpack the contribution of the study, analyses
will have to get to the ‘‘meat’’—the novel
contribution—soon. This as a result implies
focused and concise reviews of the state of the
science to contextualize and position the study.
The editorial team knows all too well—from
experience as editor, reviewer, and author—
that a concise presentation of one’s conceptual
analysis is challenging, but the net result
typically is that it brings the conceptual contri-
bution of the study to the fore (at the expense of
discussions of issues less central to the analysis,
referencing that is more extensive than neces-
sary, etc.). While authors of most contributions
can expect us to treat the 10,000-word mark as a
rock-solid upper limit, exceptions will be made.
The most obvious reason for such an excep-
tion is in the case of a large-scale meta-analysis,
where covering all the ground that such an
analysis has to cover to comply with state-of-
the-science quality standards can inevitably
make meta-analysis run longer—substantially
longer—than 10,000 words. OPR would be most
welcoming to such analyses, and the in-principle
word limit should be no reason not to consider
OPR for substantially longer meta-analyses.
A similar reasoning would hold for a comprehen-
sive review of a large body of literature when the
case for its value-added conceptual contribution
is strong. What makes for a good meta-analysis,
or more precisely, what is required for meta-
analyses to make a good conceptual contribution
is a different matter, and a matter worthy of
separate consideration. The next issue of OPR
will feature an editorial by Associate Editor
Stephen Humphrey to elaborate on this issue.
van Knippenberg
Increasingly, scholars as well as scholarly
journals are judged by their impact as evident in
citations. This means at least two things. First,
today’s academic reality is that more or less all
stakeholders in academic-journal publishing
prioritize outlets with a good impact factor that
reflects the extent to which publications in the
journal tend to be cited in the first few years after
their publication. As a new-launch journal, OPR
cannot have an impact factor yet, but the OPR
editorial team and the team at OPR’s publisher
SAGE are keenly aware of the desirability of
an appealing impact factor and have put all the
wheels in motion to apply, and qualify, for an
impact factor at the earliest opportunity. Our aim
is that OPR will achieve a healthy impact factor
in as fast a time period as possible.
Second, publications in OPR need to be
brought under the attention of scholars in the
field—they need to be read and cited. To this end,
several mechanisms are in place to give OPR
articles as much exposure as possible, as soon as
possible. All articles accepted for publication in
OPR will be processed for publication directly
following formal acceptance. We will be aiming
to launch online-first publication (publication
online, in fully citable form, ahead of inclusion in
print) as soon as possible. OPR also offers free-
trial online access (https://online.sagepub.com/
cgi/register?registration¼FTOPR) and a rapidly
increasing number of people are signing up that
will be able to access OPR articles as soon as they
are available. SAGE also has a number of other
tools to get OPR articles ‘‘out there,’’ for instance
by ensuring that publications appear in Google
Scholar and similar search engines more or less
immediately upon online publication. In short, for
all those people wondering about OPR’s impact
factor, visibility, etcetera: it is in good hands.
OPR’s ambition is to become the most important
home for conceptual work in the field of organi-
zational psychology, and we work hard on all the
issues big and small required to realize this
ambition.
OPR is an official journal of the European
Association of Work & Organizational
Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on June 22, 2015
7
Psychology (EAWOP), and EAWOP is a part-
ner with SAGE in the publication of OPR. The
members of EAWOP’s Executive Committee
have given OPR their warm and strong support
ever since I brought the original proposal for
OPR to the Executive Committee four years
ago. OPR is deeply indebted to the members of
the Executive Committee in its ‘‘founding
years’’ (2007–2009), and first and foremost to
the gentle and persistent efforts of EAWOP
President Franco Fraccaroli without whom I’m
sure we would have no OPR. Words of sincere
gratitude are also due to Michael Carmichael
and the team at SAGE, whose enthusiastic and
expert support from day one has made the
current smooth launch of the journal possible as
well as helped shape the journal to bring it to
the best and most viable form possible. The
team at SAGE is all an editor could wish for.
OPR is also fortunate to have Stephen
Humphrey and Mark Griffin serve as Associate
Editors. The enthusiasm and expertise they bring
to the journal are invaluable for OPR’s develop-
ment and success. In this respect, I also extend a
warm word of thanks to Henry Moon, who
unfortunately could no longer combine his role of
Associate Editor with other commitments, but
whose contributions in getting the structure of
OPR off the ground and in shape are hugely
appreciated. A final word of thanks is due here to
our editorial board, who have been supporting
OPR from its official launch mid-2009 onwards
and without whom the journal simply could not
make good on its aspiration level for quality.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Michael Carmichael, Stephen
Humphrey, Mark Griffin, and Jess Powell for
their feedback on an earlier draft of this
editorial.
Reference
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371–384.
8 Organizational Psychology Review 1(1)

Author biography editor of Organizational Psychology Review

Daan van Knippenberg is Professor of Organi-
zational Behavior at the Rotterdam School of
Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam,
the Netherlands. He has published over 130 scho-
larly articles, books, and book chapters, including
in such outlets as Academy of Management Jour-
nal, Annual Review of Psychology, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Organization Science, and
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, many of which revolve around his key
research interests in leadership, work group
diversity, group decision making, creativity and
innovation, and social identity processes in orga-
nizations. Daan van Knippenberg is founding
and an associate editor of Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, and has been associate editor
of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes and guest editor at Leadership Quar-
terly, European Journal of Work & Organiza-
tional Psychology, and Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations. He is co-founder and direc-
tor of the Erasmus Centre for Leadership Studies,
co-founder and co-organizer of the New Direc-
tions in Leadership Research conference orga-
nized by Duke University, Erasmus University,
INSEAD, and The Wharton School, and a Fellow
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology.

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY on June 22, 2015